bosch_camera_mjpeg_snapshot

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses using ffmpeg, pulling a single frame from RTSPS stream (inst=3 sub-stream), saving to a specific cache directory, and noting lower resolution but faster speed. It does not cover error handling or missing dependencies, but provides substantial behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a one-sentence summary, followed by technical details and prerequisites. It is not overly verbose, though the phrase 'Direct LAN MJPEG snapshot via RTSP inst=3 (Gen2 only)' could be slightly condensed. Still efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (local ffmpeg command, prerequisites) and presence of an output schema, the description covers behavior and constraints adequately. However, the missing parameter semantics and lack of guidance on how to specify the camera leave a gap. It is complete enough for agents with domain knowledge but incomplete for naive agents.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter 'camera' with type string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what value the 'camera' parameter expects (e.g., ID, name, IP). This is a gap, especially since the tool likely requires a specific camera identifier.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it performs a 'Direct LAN MJPEG snapshot' via RTSP, specifies it's for Gen2 only, and contrasts with 'snap.jpg' to distinguish from sibling tools like bosch_camera_snapshot. The verb 'snapshot' and resource 'camera MJPEG stream' are precise.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells when to use (for a faster local snapshot vs cloud) and prerequisites: ffmpeg installed, MCP host on same LAN, and Gen2 camera only. It implies when not to use (if these conditions aren't met) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives beyond snap.jpg.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.